Well, not really. Whatever the reason for your leaving the campaign, that was maybe a convenient excuse, but not the truth. You applied to a new one just a few minutes later, and we all know inactive accounts don't participate in campaigns. The application was edited to "removed" not long after it was posted, which is when I made the decision. But to make your claims sound even more ridiculous, you even created your own topic offering your signature space and "promising" at least 100 posts per month. How would you be able to do that if you were planning on "taking a break from the forum"? This was posted on February 26, when I still intended to be active in the forum, weeks before I decided officially to take a break. Also, that thread did not promise at least 100 posts per month. All it did was state my average amount of posts since in the last year. I quit my signature campaign because I was taking a break from the forum. Not the other way around. Well, not really. Whatever the reason for your leaving the campaign, that was maybe a convenient excuse, but not the truth. You applied to a new one just a few minutes later, and we all know inactive accounts don't participate in campaigns. But to make your claims sound even more ridiculous, you even created your own topic offering your signature space and "promising" at least 100 posts per month. How would you be able to do that if you were planning on "taking a break from the forum"? With the offer he made to promote signatures it seems clear he did not intend to take a break, only he can explain the discrepancy in his statement but if we are being honest it will not have been the first time he has sent out conflicting messages. I could never fully work out why he would have a particular anti-agenda against the number of members and companies he chose to post about. Furthermore, the hypocrisy about what he would not promote and why, followed by the completely opposite course of action. Are we surprised? I've explained my way of thinking multiple times when it comes to signature campaigns. You both choose not to understand it, and default to the label of hypocrisy. I refuse to indulge in this comment further as I know that you are only making this post to get the same response as you have when you have made it in the past. I didn't chime in on the other thread because I've witnessed what is being discussed in this thread first-hand and did some digging months before this thread arose. In essence, I was saying "Hey, I've seen this going on as well". I'm not sure how that is a problem?
Because you're not doing that, you're throwing a lot of baseless accusations around and slighting individuals and entire companies without really having the first clue what you're talking about. That's the main problem. Nobody is going to interfere with your right to do that here, but you don't get to remain free of judgment or criticism; that is also our right to point out when what you're saying is wrong, contradictory, or simply doesn't make sense. They're not baseless though...Just have ninjastic.space open on one monitor and the sportsbet thread open in another, and look at the flow of merits between the most active participants over the last 20+ pages. You will see that very low quality posts are frequently merited there, and that is only one sign of the abuse that is surrounding the sportsbet.io brand and fan-base. If you look for a while like I have, and extend your searches into trust pages, you'll end up with a network of members who have helped each other to rank up at an expedited rate in comparison to a member who actually contributes value to the forum. Though if you aren't interested in doing that and you want to conclude my opinions are baseless (ironically, with no proof of them being baseless), sure. |
|
|
|
TLDR There would be a legitimate investigation here if anyone gave a shit enough so in my opinion, your post is both uncalled for and invalid. You don't give a shit enough either, otherwise you would be conducting said investigation. Your post is just as useless as this thread. Besides, you missed the fact that OP already started another thread. Why didn't you chime in on that one? Its quite obvious OP works for a competing sportsbook and is just trying to shit on as many other casinos and campaign managers as possible. And you're sticking up for him. Well done. You are literally wasting your time with him. Hopefully he will fade away in to a permanent absence now that he is no longer in any campaign. I quit my signature campaign because I was taking a break from the forum. Not the other way around. TLDR There would be a legitimate investigation here if anyone gave a shit enough so in my opinion, your post is both uncalled for and invalid. You don't give a shit enough either, otherwise you would be conducting said investigation. Your post is just as useless as this thread. Besides, you missed the fact that OP already started another thread. Why didn't you chime in on that one? Its quite obvious OP works for a competing sportsbook and is just trying to shit on as many other casinos and campaign managers as possible. And you're sticking up for him. Well done. [/quote] I'd also like to add to my last response here. I'm not that committed to a forum dominated by people like JollyGood and the likes. If the forum community was one that I loved, I might. Though there is a lot about this community that make me only like it, not love it. I didn't chime in on the other thread because I've witnessed what is being discussed in this thread first-hand and did some digging months before this thread arose. In essence, I was saying "Hey, I've seen this going on as well". I'm not sure how that is a problem? |
|
|
|
I think it's a good idea. I would support the idea if it worked somewhat in the way of adding 1 "dmerit" per 3-5 earned merits. I made a poll about in support. I think this could really change the community for the better. URL to poll. All credits given. ~snip~
About having many accounts, I absolutely do not deny it. In fact, I have many low and high rank accounts...
---
The summary is that I don't even know the number of accounts I have because it's not among the important priorities of my life.
I believe that this is just another in a series of alt accounts that the OP has, and it is really funny that he thinks that he is smarter than everyone else when he thinks that such naive tactics can help him in his plan. Now that he has completely exposed himself, I believe that his idea is to take revenge on some members with his alt account farm - but he has two very big problems - the first is to convince the admin to make a change in the merit system, and the second is how to we all pretend we don't know what he's doing. I'm only just now seeing that I am being accused of being an alt of the OP. ...Really? So because I've supported an unpopular opinion, it makes me the same person as the one who shared the unpopular opinion first? I suggest that you re-evaluate what you have said thoroughly. I'm really keeping my lid on after seeing these accusations so late. ...and I wonder why I find it personally so hard to come here and post nowadays. I really enjoyed this place when I became active again however the more I see posts like yours, filled with a baseless, bold and offensive accusation just because I supported an unpopular opinion, and much much worse posts that are on a consistent basis, I understand why I find it so hard to be here. |
|
|
|
I like the wide range of opinions. Thank you for those who left feedback on the idea while following the thread rules  I'm not married to this idea and I was curious about the results when put simply and without bias. The community has spoken, so I'll lock the thread! |
|
|
|
All credit/merit should go to OddJobsForBitcoin's thread, "Hey Theymos, There Should Be a Demotion Button" for the inspiration of this simplified idea that may be easier to implement.Poll: Should "dmerit" be added to allow a member to demerit (-merit) another member?- Yes. - No. Specification: - Demerit a member = burn x merit and log the burn in the profile. - Effect: 1 dmerit -1 merit - 2 (or more, TBD) Merits earned = 1 dmerit Discussion guidelines- If discussing please stay on-topic and provide constructive feedback, not drama or unrelated discussion. - Discussions and suggestions for a 2nd refined poll would be appreciated. First thoughts:- How many merits to earn 1 dmerit? - Would a tweak to smerit like 1 merit = 1 smerit be appropriate if dmerit were implemented? - Why would anybody not want this (if they either aren't an alt account or a poor community member/pest?) Votes reasoned in thread (votes made in poll): - Yes 0 (1) - No 0 (2)
|
|
|
|
I think it's a good idea. I would support the idea if it worked somewhat in the way of adding 1 "dmerit" per 3-5 earned merits. I made a poll about in support. I think this could really change the community for the better. URL to poll. All credits given. |
|
|
|
Signature available for hire: $50/week in BTC (not including escrow fees). - Average of 3.82 posts per month since Feb 2023 (~114 posts per month, see ninjastic) - $100 in escrow wallet at all times, when $0 signature opens. - I prefer decentralized, non-custodial and/or open-source projects. - I prefer not to advertise centralized casinos for the time being. What I consider to be spam will be deleted. On-topic conversation only.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for having me Little Mouse however I will be leaving this campaign.
|
|
|
|
As soon as I saw the article that fixedfloat was "hacked" for this amount I thought, "this has to be an inside job" because of the amount. Why on earth would FixedFloat need $26m in hot wallet reserves to operate, let alone $2.6m? This makes no sense from an operational or security standpoint for a swapping platform like fixedfloat. The status from WazzCrypto seems to infer that this was the case. That fixedfloat funded the "exploiter" wallet, thus being an inside job. Or is it inferring that the exploiter used the service to fund the wallet prior to exploiting the full amount? |
|
|
|
Does gambling needs experience or anyone +18, even the inexperienced one can also play? Though playing gamble has a limited age grade or age bracket and the accepted is from +18 years and there are some casinos hall at the door post, it is written clearly that it is only people of +18 can play. But what about the inexperienced ones, are they allowed to play gamble as well? Or they are also restricted to have the fun? In my observation, there are two elements to participate in gambling. One, you must above 18 years in my country and secondly you must have an experience to play, so I want to know if inexperienced people can also play gamble.
If this was somewhat of a rule then there would be much less gamblers. I am sure that a lot of people who gamble started not by reading the rules or playing with credits or fake money, and rather learnt as they gambled their money. Your logic is sound, people shouldn't wager their hard earned money on a game they are not experienced in, though that is not how people work. People see the opportunity to make money and have fun, while seeing some other people doing it, so they try and do the same. From there they build their positive or negative experience and thus their positive or negative relationship with gambling. |
|
|
|
I must say that I do like that the best you can do in attempt to invalidate my opinion is a set of quotes from August of 2023.
You were a hypocrite who is not to give moral lessons in August 2023, and you are still a hypocrite now, because nothing has happened since then to think that you have stopped being a hypocrite, on the contrary. One could choose to perceive that isolated situation as hypocrisy (as you do) though I've already explained in the thread about how I do not see it that way, as I believe being open and honest about the fact that casinos thrive on human greed and weakness should not mean that I have to change his opinions just to qualify for a signature campaign, and that others should not be excluded from this opportunity because of discussing this fact. Since you accuse me of being a hypocrite since then on a constant basis, how about you provide some evidence of that? My best is that you'll either find nothing or post some unrelated garbage, since garbage posting is something is a constant with yourself. If icopress is made a merit source, you can be very sure that merit distribution will be biased and influenced by icopress' business interests. There is no way that it will not be influenced by their business interests, and it would be naive to think that icopress will take an unbiased approach to merit distribution.
What a way to change your statement from favor of an application to against that application. I don't know what lead you to think that Icopress is no longer fit for a merit source position because to me it seems more like a personal issue rather than a genuine one. As far as I know, Icopress mostly give merits to the good posts only and he's not someone who would favor the ones who are in his best interest. As a campaign manager he has the right to favor advertisers and deal with them professionally but that doesn't mean that after becoming a merit source he may send merits to the advertisers only so he can please them for his own best interests. That's a totally false statement against a reputed member like Icopress. I highly disagree with you in that regard and I believe that majority of the members will also disagree with you. That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that a member that favors the interests of advertisers over the interests of the community does not deserve to be a merit source, period. |
|
|
|
Use ninjastic.space and see how many times you have applied. I don't care much about this, but I can't find any other reasonable explanation for why you are deliberately spreading slander. In any case, this whole dialogue no longer makes any sense because you wrote such a long post, but did not bother to say “one” main word. Therefore, I decided to pay you $1000 in bitcoins if you name the person who was removed from the campaign for the reason you refer to. But if this person says that this is a lie, then you undertake not to participate in any campaign for the next three months. I think this is an excellent agreement considering that you only need to give a “name” to back up your words. Then the next time you want to soak me in shit you will have more arguments.
Go and get how many times ive applied to your campaigns yourself. I already know myself how many times I have applied to your campaigns in the last 3-6 months, it is less than the fingers I have on one of my hands. This, again, is irrelevant to my comments and I have explained further for you below. As for your other comment, I will correct it, to "members are threatened to be kicked" instead of "a member got kicked" as I misunderstood that pawel7777 got kicked originally, which I said in that thread already. Is that what this your feedback was all about? I didn't even notice that until you quoted your post about the $1000 btc right now. Aside from that singular misunderstanding, everything else is a legitimate and honest opinion that is motivated none other than your actions lately. Saw the neutral feedback you left. I seems he was sarcastic and the rag no way is right, it is a bad use of feedback system. Even though it is neutral, I don't think anyone will care about it but you made it easy for others to realize that he was right about saying if you are granted as a merit source you will use it to influence your business.their fraudulent mindset and cheating their clients behind the slogan of non custodial open source wallet.
His personal position regarding the merit source has nothing to do with what I wrote in the tag and in the post above. This is partially untrue as you directly quote the post I made in your merit source thread, in the reference post that you used for the first feedback: Quoted for reference. If icopress is made a merit source, you can be very sure that merit distribution will be biased [...]
That aside, it seems like bad business to go about things the way that Wasabi and icopress have [...]
We should not be entertaining icopress's behaviour if we want to preserve integrity here in this forum [...]
See this thread where a member got kicked from their campaign just for recommending another wallet instead of the wallet that was being advertised in their signature. [...] The other 3 comments are very legitimate comments, aside from a slight miswording in the last quote, which says a member got kicked when it should be that you said you will kick anyone who recommends another wallet while wearing wasabi's signature. Quoted for reference. That aside, it seems like bad business to go about things the way that Wasabi and icopress have [...]
1. To kick a member from a campaign because they recommended another wallet instead of what was in their signature is saying that signatures should influence speech, otherwise they should not be in the campaign. Not only is that wrong, it's bad business, and if anyone reads that post, I suggested better business right after it: That aside, it seems like bad business to go about things the way that Wasabi and icopress have. I'd say a business would be better off respecting honest consumer/publisher opinions and instead being constructive by asking "We see you recommended Sparrow rather than Wasabi, so that we can improve to change that opinion in the future, tell us what made you recommend Sparrow over Wasabi?" instead of punishing honesty. I think that is a much better way to interact and build a relationship with a user (or publisher) and gain value from them, rather than breaking that relationship and taking somewhat of an aggressive approach.
It's funny that my post was made as a bad one, when it was actually very constructive. Kicking a member for recommending another wallet is bad business, in comparison to the following example I gave, which is undeniably a better way to do business. 2. We should not be entertaining point 1. as if we do, we will have rampant manipulated speech and fake user experiences when it comes to discussions that relate to services being advertised by signature campaigns. False reviews/purposeful shilling for advertisers = not good for the integrity of the forum. It's plain and simple: Quoted for reference.
We should not be entertaining icopress's behaviour if we want to preserve integrity here in this forum [...]
[/quote] 3. There us nothing wrong with me highlighting that a member can get kicked for recommending another wallet over what was in their signature as per icopress' actions. I again admit, that this should be reworded to "members can be kicked" instead of "a member was kicked", and I will do that as I see my mistake on that part. Though that is all that I will change. Quoted for reference.
See this thread where a member got kicked from their campaign just for recommending another wallet instead of the wallet that was being advertised in their signature. [...] [/quote] |
|
|
|
I hope you are right but when one of the four quotes is about the negative vote for merit source and it was quoted before other three then it creates a doubt. This quote was added for reference because after his applications to participate were rejected several times, he apparently took it as a personal insult. And he began to attack, creating FUD within a short period of time. The user then added to this the spread of slander (which was the main reason for the tag). It is this position that is reflected in the tag, since there is a significant difference between when someone expresses their critical position (for example what pawel7777 touched on in this thread... or m2017's objections in the application thread) and when the user has malicious goals. I can already say that he will soon come to this thread with a statement that he does not need this 1000 dollars. But everything is much simpler... lies cannot be supported by facts. I am going to address this very clearly. You need to provide proof. This is definitely a false accusation. I can't even remember the last time I applied to one of your campaigns and if I did, I certainly would not be upset to not get accepted. This is not at all a part of my nature and it never has been for the entire time I've existed on this forum. It's a baseless accusation that can not be proven whatsoever. What I am saying has absolutely nothing to do with being in your campaigns. I was last a member of mixtum campaign, and I think after that I maybe applied to one or two of your campaigns. To say that my opinions are based off of not being accepted into your campaigns is an outright lie. I have never complained about not being accepted into a signature campaign and I have never been ungrateful about signature campaigns. I appreciate when I am accepted and understand there are more qualified members when I am not accepted. The truth about the basis of my comments against you is that you have behaved inappropriately and displayed that you care more about your advertising/business interests than the community.1. You continued to promote the BC.Game campaign even while there were many open accusations. You only stopped that campaign once they stopped filling your wallet. Unlike Royse777, who will pause a campaign until any open dispute is resolved, and who is therefore acting in the interests of not just the advertiser but also in the interests of the community. 2. Leo said a lot of valid facts about Wasabi that have proven they are potentially risky to deal with, and yet you have completely ignored this and you still work with them, proving that you care less about Leo's findings and more about the money that wasabi give you. 3. After the thread by pawel7777, you have shown that you care more about the desires of Wasabi and its campaign than the freedom of opinion that users should have whether they have a signature or not. Let's not mention Betnomi and your involvement with acting in their interests all the way until it was plain as day obvious that they scammed their players en mass as well? The above are 3-4 reasons for my opinions about you which have been compiling over time. I have never spoken badly about a campaign manager for not accepting me into a campaign. This is downright absurd and anyone who has been reviewing my posts and existence here would surely know that this is an outright false accusation. Using this as an excuse for your actions which lead to my comments is a cheap way out, and I hope you get called out for it by another member as well. |
|
|
|
Since supporting icopress, I have only noticed more and more that he is here to favor his own interests with advertisers and that the community is not truly first priority for him.
Do you mean that you, with your (supposed) super high IQ, do put the interests of the community first by wearing a casino advertisement in your signature, while saying this? As for the question if gambling is unethical - it undoubtedly is. Casinos, gambling, etc have always been unethical. Why do you think some countries outright ban gambling activities? Because it's exploitative.
...
If you really think the gambling board is as ethical as other boards this forum contains, you're out of touch with basic ethics and probably lost in the casino sauce.
You're not here to give many ethics lessons yourself. I'll summarize it for you in a sentence, which is not mine: Lol, guy that is willing to promote something that he thinks is highly unethical and exploitative for a little bit of bitcoin will teach us about ethics.  I'm not giving ethics lessons...I'm stating the change in my opinion.. As for the rest of your post, this has already been discussed elsewhere. If you want to rehash that conversation, you can go to the relevant thread. I personally have already responded to it, the community and I have moved on...otherwise it'd still be a conversation. I must say that I do like that the best you can do in attempt to invalidate my opinion is a set of quotes from August of 2023. That says a lot in itself. You're a very cute member and I enjoy your ongoing entertainment. It is fine to make a business from bitcointalk. If you want to do that and prioritize the business over the community however, then you do not deserve to be a merit source...
I am of the same opinion that there should be a clear distinction between the business role (bounty manager) and the merit-source (volunteer activity) to avoid conflicts of interest. In my opinion, combining the role of a company manager and a merchant will inevitably lead to abuse of power opportunity. Should clearly separate flies from cutlets / bees from honey. I am firmly convinced that in the conditions for the appointment of a merit-source there should be a clause "a candidate for the role of a merit-source must NOT have any business-related activities". I 100% agree with you and I am pleased to see a fellow member sharing their honest opinion. Refreshing, and very well said. Kudos! |
|
|
|
TLDR There would be a legitimate investigation here if anyone gave a shit enough so in my opinion, your post is both uncalled for and invalid.
You don't give a shit enough either, otherwise you would be conducting said investigation. Your post is just as useless as this thread. Besides, you missed the fact that OP already started another thread. Why didn't you chime in on that one? Its quite obvious OP works for a competing sportsbook and is just trying to shit on as many other casinos and campaign managers as possible. And you're sticking up for him. Well done. I do not have the privilege of having enough time to fight uphill battles. I give a shit enough to chime in. I do not give a shit enough to get into arguments with tens of members who are fighting on the other side of the truth. I did not chime into the other thread because I haven't personally observed it, nor have I taken the time to investigate it. LoyceV can vouch that I had investigated this situation long before this thread was ever created, and I came here to share that I see where the OP is coming from because I have seen it first hand. What do you want me to do, make a thread? Who will actually give a shit since majority of DefaultTrust are corrupt or silent because they don't want to be attacked by the corrupt DTs? I'm also not sticking up for the OP. I am only sharing that I have had the same observation long ago, and that there is legitimacy to his claims. |
|
|
|
Quoted for reference. If icopress is made a merit source, you can be very sure that merit distribution will be biased [...]
That aside, it seems like bad business to go about things the way that Wasabi and icopress have [...]
We should not be entertaining icopress's behaviour if we want to preserve integrity here in this forum [...]
See this thread where a member got kicked from their campaign just for recommending another wallet instead of the wallet that was being advertised in their signature. [...] That was a really cute neutral feedback you just left  . Birth of another troll? Malicious slander? Laughable comments...and the fact is that if it were true, the feedback would be red...and if you left a red, the reliability of your trust would be in question because the fact is that my comments are based on true & recent events. I could not care less about your neutral feedback, and I stick by my honest comments and opinions. It is 100% true that you have demonstrated to have served advertisers more than you serve the best interests of the community, and becauss of that, you do not deserve to be a merit source in my opinion. |
|
|
|
This is at least your second account made for shit talking purposes, is it not? Fuck you and your big nothingburger of a thread. If you had one singular functional testicle you would have posted this nonsense under your main account. Go fuck yourself. Sorry to everyone else but after almost 10 years here I just can't stand shittalking cowards. The OP is not making up entirely false claims so i dont think that outburst was really warranted to be honest. If this all upsets you so much, stop looking and don't waste the time that you're taking to type your tantrum? Even I have noticed the fuckery going on with the users mentioned in the OP and the sportsbet thread over 6 months before this thread. It's not a myth, you can see the circle jerking clearly on ninjastic and through a deep look of the trust system. Proof is there, though seems like you choose not to pay any attention to those important details for some reasonThere is something that could genuinely something be investigated here if there was anyone in DT who first and foremost gave a shit, was committed to protecting the integrity of this forum, was 100% not corrupt or influenced in any way by forces like sportsbet, and not fearful of tue slap they might receive by members like yourself, who for some reason always assume and defend 100% innocence for accused parties. TLDR There would be a legitimate investigation here if anyone gave a shit enough so in my opinion, your post is both uncalled for and invalid. |
|
|
|
I support this application.
As a campaign manager, icopress does a fantastic job in making sure advertisers get good value while participants are fairly paid. As a community member, I find it often that when I hit the "+Merit" button, icopress has done the same thing with high quality posts. I trust icopress to appropriately and responsibly use the power of being a Merit source to help reward users who are contributing impeccable quality content to the forum. Based on support and your profile icopress, I am sure it's a matter of when and not if. Good luck!
I retract this support. Since supporting icopress, I have only noticed more and more that he is here to favor his own interests with advertisers and that the community is not truly first priority for him. It is fine to make a business from bitcointalk. If you want to do that and prioritize the business over the community however, then you do not deserve to be a merit source... If icopress is made a merit source, you can be very sure that merit distribution will be biased and influenced by icopress' business interests. There is no way that it will not be influenced by their business interests, and it would be naive to think that icopress will take an unbiased approach to merit distribution. There are many better members out there to support or to encourage to make an application for being a merit source over icopress. |
|
|
|
the Biden Administration announced an emergency data collection initiative targeted at bitcoin mining operations in the US via the US Energy Information Administration, an "independent" sub-agency of the Department of Energy. It seems that the Biden Administration is identifying the electricity usage of the bitcoin mining industry as an emergency that is threatening grid stability throughout the US, as is evidenced by the name of the survey; "Proposed Emergency Survey - Cryptocurrency Mining Facilities." "Emergency" - LOL! What do they even consider an emergency? Are the US now running out of power and is Bitcoin to blame for it? Highly unlikely to be the case.... Here are a few interesting points from the article:
- They require that all mining facilities respond and fill out the survey as it's required by law.
- The companies need to submit their addresses and points of contact.
- The companies must state if they are mining Proof-of-Stake or Proof-of-Work coins. We all know this is bullshit, as Bitcoin is the target here.
- The companies need to state how many facilities they have in the US and provide precise coordinates.
- Mining companies must state the number of miners, their models, and the number of produced hashrate.
- EIA also requires information about how much electricity is being consumed.
- They need to name their electricity service providers.
All the information that they need to be able to strike and seize the existing bitcoin and the mining hardware. Any miner in the US should be focusing on getting the f×ck out instead of filling in that survey. That survey seems like a one way ticket to their doom. Or, maybe they'll just print money to try and buy existing operations out, and if they don't comply, then play dirty...if history is any indicator, that's the motive that must surely be behind this "emergency survey". Let us hope these people are not trying to come up with something.
You can sure count on it! 2024 presents... USA & The War On BitcoinJust like the war on drugs, where the US seized, manufactured and redistributed drugs for profit...the US will seize miners, manufacture bitcoin through those seized miners and then redistribute those bitcoins for profit! If they find enough hashpower to seize (or tax) they will probably hit the reset button on their holdings, sell it all off on-market, wipe out as many miners as possible to make mining as non-profitable as possible, and take over close-to the entire US mining operation. Any of the above should not be surprising, the US cartel has been doing this kind of shady shit for decades! This is my take though franky1 might either be onto the more realistic potential outcome of this survey or what will happen after my dystopian thought quoted above Any business is run under the same illusion. If it's not bothering those in power, they let it be. If it becomes powerful itself or starts pointing to the wrongdoings of others, action is taken to stop it or minimize its influence.
bitcoin isnt going away.. so "can" lead down a dark path where the next stage could be FERC getting involved with regulating what miners should be used in america(energy efficiency rating like kitchen refrigerators/washers), and EPA getting involved in location regulations depending on local/national grid demands on fosil powered plants in certain regions and NERC getting involved in location regulations limiting how many devices are operating on local circuits to avoid neighbourhood surges and brownouts and DoE getting involved in creating regulations of identifying and requiring registration of mining for flimsy excuses of preventing energy theft, environment impacts and social disorder caused by excess use above capacity plus more then just all of the above im not saying all this will play out. but its worth keeping an eye out and expect it might/could happen |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
